8/3/2019 Social Forces 1962 Rhyne 89 90

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-forces-1962-rhyne-89-90 1/2

BOOK REVIEWS 89

"Programs and Technologies of Planned Change."Each division is introduced by a critical summaryof the problems involved, with additional commentsat the beginning of each chapter. A few of theselections are tantalizingly short, but most of themare quite long, giving the author full opportunity

to develop his ideas and providing the reader withsomething solid to chew on. The selections arelargely theoretical in character, discussing general principles and problems of group dynamics.A wide variety of authors is included, comingchiefly from the fields of social psychology andsociology. Only a few cases of specific action-research are reported. Merely passing mention ismade of the work of Dr. ]. L. Moreno in sociodrama and psychodrama, or of the techniques ofsociometry.As a book of readings this volume presents a

summary of much of the current theoretical l itera

ture in its field. There are some contradictionsbetween different articles but this should serveto stimulate closer analysis by the reader. Thebook does not break much new ground, save fora few previously unpublished articles. RobertChin, for example, in a paper on "The Util ity ofSystem Models and Developmental Models forPract it ioners," makes an interesting proposal forthe development of intersystem models.

The editors of any book of readings are necessarily faced with many choices as to their selections. This reviewer would have appreciated a

larger variety of concrete examples of plannedchange, particularly in regard to the problems oftraining, consulting, and research which are presented in Part IV .as the fundamental elements inthe technology of planned change. The practitioners of this ar t need to present to the generalpublic a wider selection of case studies clearlyrevealing the techniques and effectiveness of controlled change.

This present book is not for the novice nor isit a book to be read at one sitting. It is a collection of solid mater ia l for the specialist. Here arearticles which read a few at a time should be productive of fruitful discussion and thought. Theeditors have provided a valuable summary ofmany of the problems and developments in thefield of group dynamics.

PAUL F. CRESSEYWheaton College, Massachusetts

AUTOCRACY AND DEMOCRACY: AN EXPERIMENTAL

INQUIRY. By Ralph K. White and RonaldLippitt. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1960.

330 pp. $6.00.

In the late thirties, White and Lippitt, along

with the late Kurt Lewin, conducted the series ofstudies that have become famous as the "Iowa

Studies" of young boys and girls in different typesof groups. In the present book the two authorsreturn "in spirit" to those experiments to reportthe findings once again and to present furtherspeculations. The result is a readable account

of information already reported and a record ofthe victory of the democratic heart over the analytic mind.Against the unsullied victory of the democratic

hero over the autocratic villain, against the findings, against the experimental ingenuity, against

the scientific conclusions, one can hardly argue.So it is with fear and trembling that I append afinal unscientific nonexperiment: whether democracy will always win is still a moot point, butin this game autocracy could not win. The poorvillain was "taken" by a stacked deck in a pokergame. The stacking, which is obviously unintended,can be seen in three forms: (1) the definition ofautocracy is consistently loaded with negativequalities; (2) the selection and presentation of thedata consistently point to the case against autocracy; (3) speculations on personality, small groups,and politics present autocracy as an unquestionedvillain.

(1) We learn that autocratic leaders dole outinformation in bits "so that further steps are alwaysuncertain to a large degree" and that democraticleaders give an "activity perspective" (p. 26).We also learn that the autocrat is "personal" inhis praise and criticism and that the democrat is"objective" or "fact-minded" (p. 27). These distinctions are not chosen at random; they are twoof the four criteria used to differentiate the twotypes of groups. Thus, by definition, the autocratis dealt a bad hand.

It is true that the experimenters are free tochoose what qualities they will for their contrastinggroups, so long as there is no attempt to suggestthat the combined qualities of a group's organization are not meant to be tests of some alreadyexist ing notions. The experimenters are not freein thei r choice if their groups are intended, eitherbefore or after the fact, to be such examples. Andthis is the present case. Since neither of the twonegative qualities ascribed to autocratic leadersis necessarily autocrat ic, the reverse qualities arenot necessarily democratic. Rather, it would seem

that the positive qualities ascribed to democracyare just as much a part of a well-run autocracyas a well-run democracy and that limited time perspectives and "personal" criticism are to be foundin poorly-run organizations regardless of the political form. For these reasons, any differences between the behavior of the children in the severalgroups can no more be ascribed to the autocracydemocracy issue than to the "well-run" issue. Todo otherwise is to let democracy win because itstarts with two very real aces up its sleeve.

(2) Examples of ways in which the data areselected and presented in a light unfavorable to

"autocracy" are too numerous for complete enumeration. Two instances suffice. In a section titled

"Democracy Can Be Efficient" we find that "from

the narrow standpoint of work goals alone ... the

democratic; groups were about as efficient as the

autocratic ones (p. 64). Closer inspection showsthat the "autocratic" groups actua lly produced

  b  y g u e  s  t   on N o v e m b  e r 2  8  ,2  0 1 1 

h  t   t   p :  /   /   s f   . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a 

l   s  . or  g /  

D o

 wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om 

8/3/2019 Social Forces 1962 Rhyne 89 90

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/social-forces-1962-rhyne-89-90 2/2

90 SOCIAL FORCES

more work; therefore, they are more efficient.There is, however, no section in the book titled"Autocracy Can Be Efficient." In the same section we learn that "genuine interest in work wasunquestionably higher in democracy" (p. 65). Nomatter how important this may be to efficiency, it

is not a measure of efficiency itself; it may be acause of efficiency but not the effect.A second example of similar procedures has to

do with aggression. In the first experimentalsequence involving a comparison of two groupsonly, the "autocratic" groups showed much moreaggressive and scapegoating behavior than the"democratic" group. The same predictions weremade for the second experimental sequence involving four different groups, each group in successionhaving three different regimes, giving a total offive "autocracies," five "democracies," and two"laissez-faire" groups. Since each group expe

rienced "democracy" and "autocracy" at leastonce, the hypothesis was that each group wouldshow more aggression in "autocracy." In threeof the groups the reverse was the case and byrather wide margins. In the fourth group it wasan almost even balance with slightly less in"democracy." The crucial point is that this information is first introduced under the heading"Autocracy Can Create Much Hositility and Aggression" (p. 66). Would it not have been moreaccurate to make the same statement about"democracy" even though it might be unpleasant?

This error is compounded by devoting two complete chapters to frustration and aggression in"autocratic" groups and 110 elaboration or interpretation of aggression in "democratic" groups. Thedifficulty is not evaded by calling the boys "unnaturally good" in the well-behaved "autocracies"and by discussing this under the term "submissiveness." To do so is to recognize the winning handnot by the cards each player holds but by a preference for the player himself.All the data are by no means presented in simi

lar fashion, but "autocracy" never clearly wins ahand. Much of the time "autocracy" (if that iswhat it is) loses on the merits of the case, andcertainly it is true that the data show clear differences between the two. For demonstratingthese differences, the authors deserve objectivepraise, but these merits cannot hide the imbalancein the emphasis given the data.(3) These biases in definition and presentation

are underlined by interpretive remarks of similar

bias. Some of the remarks explain away problemsin "democracy" and successes in "autocracy."

Some of them have the effect of transmutingdemocratic theory, as therein defined, into scien

tific theory. Still others seem to have no functionother than letting the reader know that the authorscannot abide "autocracy." The epitome of theseremarks is reached when, commenting on one of

the boys who contributed greatly to his group's sta

bility, they note that "the kind of autocracy repre

sented in these experiments was not actually very

bad, and Eddie's enjoyment of it was thereforenot a very serious blot on his character" (p. 202).What makes such a remark doubly unfortunate isthat it occurs in a chapter (ch, 14) which containsone of the most reasonable discussions of "the nature and growth of conscience" this reviewer has

recently seen.I f there be a moral to the book, it is this: The

social scientist who investigates the relative meritsof value-laden phenomena must be prepared tojudge the empirical validity of all sides. If he isunwilling-or unable-let him desist, and in desisting let him recognize that he forfeits for socialscience any thoughtful commentary on the worldas it appears to the citizen, and especially thethoughtful citizen. The present authors clearlydo not meet this standard, but in this failure theyare only reflecting modern social science.In being willing to enter this no-man's land of

"fact" and "value"-a no-man's land because of thecontemporary sociologist's complete belief in butnever completely successful adherence to "ethicalneutrality"-authors White and Lippitt are to becommended. Unhappily, their execution falls farshort of their intent, but the attempt is a usefulreminder that questions linking "fact" and "value"will be asked. Let the well-trained social scientistask these questions and ask them openly andhonestly. Otherwise, the field is left to the lesswell-trained or else it becomes filled with supposedly neutral tracts in which the inescapable

evaluations enter the backdoor under the guise ofexperimental proof.

EDWIN H. RHYNECollege of William and Mary

PUBLIC OPINION AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY. ByV. O. Key, Jr . New York: Alfred A. Knopf,1961. 566 pp.

Professor Key of Harvard University has written a public opinion treatise that blends the findingsof the behavioral sciences into a meaningful andsignificant presentation of the direct and indirectrelationships between public opinion and government. He comments on a number of the widelyheld definitions of public opinion and sets forth hisown as "those opinions held by private personswhich governments find it prudent to heed." A de

tailed and reflective analysis is made of the patterns of distribution under the topics of consensus,conflict, and concentration. The structural distribution of public opinion is presented in terms ofgeographical sectionalism, occupation and socialclass, and political stratification. Key points outthat save for the special position of the South on

the Negro question, the salient characteristic ofregional distributions of opinions on many questions in 1952 and 1956 is their similarity. Actually, one must search for small differentiationsfrom region to region to account for the appearances of sectionalism that emerge from time totime.

  b  y g u e  s  t   on N o v e m b  e r 2  8  ,2  0 1 1 

h  t   t   p :  /   /   s f   . oxf   or  d  j   o ur n a 

l   s  . or  g /  

D o

 wnl   o a  d  e  d f  r  om